Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1618 (MAD)

C. v. Kalaivanan VS The Sub-Collector

2010-04-07

C.NAGAPPAN, T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2010
Judgment C. Nagappan, J. 1. The petitioner has sought for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the respondent in Roc No.4385/2009/D, dated 20.10.2009, and to direct the respondent to issue Community Certificate to the petitioner to the effect that he belongs to ‘Konda Reddy’ Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe. 2. Briefly, the petitioner’s case is that he belongs to ‘Konda Reddy’ Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe, and his father and mother possess Community Certificates issued by the Tahsildar and his elder brother was issued with the Community Certificate pursuant to the direction given by this Court and a number of his close relatives also possess Community Certificates stating that they belong to ‘Konda Reddy’ Community and the petitioner’s father applied on 11. 1996 to the respondent seeking for issuance of Community Certificate to the petitioner, who was a minor at that time, and reminder was also sent on 11. 1999 and the respondent by proceedings dated 38. 2000 rejected the claim and the petitioner challenged the same by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.8256 of 2001 and this Court by Order dated 27. 2009 set aside the Order dated 38. 2000 and directed the respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s request in the light of the Community Certificates possessed by his parents and brother and the respondent again rejected the claim of the petitioner in the impugned order and the petitioner has challenged the same in the present Writ Petition. 3. The respondent has filed counter stating that a due enquiry was conducted on the claim of the petitioner and the oral and documentary evidence was considered and it is concluded that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Konda Reddy’ Community. 4. Mr. Vijay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the family members of the petitioner, namely, father, mother and brother, possess valid Community Certificates stating that they belong to ‘Konda Reddy’ Community and the conclusion of the respondent that no reliance can be placed on those certificates, is erroneous and there is wrongful denial of the Community Certificate to the genuine claim made by the petitioner and the respondent is not right in rejecting the claim and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled for the issuance of Community Certificate sought for by him. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies on the following decisions of the Apex Court and this Court: .(i) Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra and others, 1996 (3) SCC 6851; .(ii) State of Bihar and others v. Sumit Anand, 2005 (12) SCC 248 ; (iii) A decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13. 2008 in C. Srinivasan v. The District Collector and Chairman, District Vigilance Committee, Krishnagiri District and others, W.P.No.21851 of 2007; and (iv) V. Krishnan and another v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Issuing Officer and Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Chennai and others, 2008 (4) MLJ 5241. 5. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that though the petitioner is entitled for issuance of Community Certificate on the basis of the Community Certificates possessed by his parents, there is contra evidence available in the form of revenue records and school records of the parents of the petitioner to show that they belong to Hindu Reddiar community and verification of the Community Certificate of the brother of the petitioner namely C.V. Manivannan is pending and the respondent has conducted a detailed enquiry on the claim made by the petitioner and concluded that the claim is liable to be rejected. 6. It is not in dispute that Thiru. S. Vijayaragavan, father of the petitioner, and Tmt. K.S. Vijayalakshmi, mother of the petitioner, are in possession of the Community Certificates dated 210. 1974 and 12. 1975 respectively, issued by the Tahsildar, Mettur, stating that they belong to ‘Konda Reddy’ Community. In fact, the brother of the petitioner Thiru C.V. Manivannan has sought for issuance of Community Certificate by application dated 14. 1994 and his claim was rejected and he challenged the said Order by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.19956 of 1994 and this Court by Order dated 7. 1995 set aside the rejection order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration and again, the claim was rejected and it was challenged by filing another Writ Petition in W.P.No.14821 of 1995 and this Court by Order dated 27. 1996 allowed the Writ Petition by holding that the Community Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner’s father and mother as well as his paternal uncle’s son Thiru. 1996 allowed the Writ Petition by holding that the Community Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner’s father and mother as well as his paternal uncle’s son Thiru. Ravichandran have not been cancelled and cannot be ignored and so long as those certificates stand, the petitioner therein is entitled for issuance of Community Certificate as belonging to ‘Konda Reddy’ Community and it was open to the Revenue Authorities to verify the correctness of the Community Certificates and based on the direction given in the Writ Petition, the Community Certificate, dated 29. 1996, was issued to the elder brother of the petitioner. .7. Immediately thereafter, Application, dated 11. 1996, was made seeking for issuance of Community Certificate to the petitioner. Along with the Application, a copy of the Community Certificate issued to the elder brother of the petitioner was enclosed as one of the documents. But, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on 38. 2000 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur dam, Salem District, and that order was challenged in a Writ Petition in W.P.No.8256 of 2001. A Division Bench of this Court by Order dated 27. 2009 set aside the rejection order and remitted the case to the respondent by observing that the Issuing Authority shall take into consideration all the evidence, more particularly, the Community Certificate issued to the brother of the petitioner pursuant to the Order of this Court and it is an appropriate Certificate on the claim of the petitioner. For better appreciation, the relevant observation made by the Division Bench is extracted below: .“13. We may observe that if the brother of the petitioner has been issued the certificate pursuant to the order of the Court, the respondent cannot disbelieve such Community Certificate”. .8. The respondent herein in the impugned order has stated that in the school records of the father and the mother of the petitioner there is no mention that they belong to ‘Konda Reddy’ Community and though they were in employment, their Service Register do not mention that they belong to .‘Konda Reddy’ Community and in the Community Certificates possessed by them, there is no serial number; no file number and there is no entry in the taluk records and the genuineness of the Community Certificates is questionable. 9. 9. The Community Certificates of the parents of the petitioner came up for consideration before this Court in the earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner’s brother Thiru. C.V. Manivannan and this Court in the Order dated 27. 1996 considered those documents and observed as follows: 12. In my opinion, these are the main documents which require consideration and the general letters stating that persons in Kolathur Village belong to the ‘Konda Reddy Community’ cannot certainly be relied upon. After going through the above documents, it is clear that in the earliest records, the petitioner’s father had only been described as Reddiyar and there is no indication to show that he belongs to the Konda Reddy Community. But the Community Certificates issued in favour of the petitioner’s father and mother as well as one Ravichandran cannot be ignored lightly. They clearly say that they belong to ‘Konda Reddy’ Community. Those certificates have not been cancelled so far. It is possible to explain the earliest records referring to the petitioner’s father as only ‘Reddiyar’ by saying that during those days there was no necessity to mention the Tribe name as ‘Konda Reddy’. So long as those certificates stand it would be strange if the petitioner is denied the same status as ‘Konda Reddy’”. Having concluded thus, this Court issued specific direction to the respondent to issue a Community Certificate to the petitioner therein, namely, C.V. Manivannan, as belonging to ‘Konda Reddy’ Community. The respondent therein complied with the direction and issued the Community Certificate on 29. 1996 to the brother of the petitioner. In the light of the observation made above, the finding of the respondent that the genuineness of the Community Certificates of the petitioner’s parents is questionable, is perverse and erroneous and cannot be sustained. 10. Inthe impugned order, the respondent has rejected the Community Certificate of the paternal uncle’s son of the petitioner by name S. Ravichandran by observing that the Deputy Tahsildar was never the Competent Authority to issue Community Certificate and hence, no reliance can be placed on it. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on G.O.Ms.No.517 (PL-M) Department, dated 15. 1985, submits that Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar and Independent Deputy Tahsildars were delegated with powers to issue Community Certificates in respect of Scheduled Casts/Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes during the period from 12. 1957 to 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on G.O.Ms.No.517 (PL-M) Department, dated 15. 1985, submits that Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar and Independent Deputy Tahsildars were delegated with powers to issue Community Certificates in respect of Scheduled Casts/Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes during the period from 12. 1957 to 15. 1985 and only by the above Government Order that power was withdrawn and the Tahsildar alone came to be authorized to issue Community Certificates. Withdrawal of power in the above notification was made in consonance with the direction of the Government of India. In view of the above, the finding of the respondent that the Deputy Tahsildar was never the competent authority to issue Community Certificate, is erroneous in law. 11. Further, therespondent has rejected the Community Certificate of the brother of the petitioner by name C.V. Manivannan, on the ground that it was given pursuant to the direction of this Court in the Writ Petition and in the Order itself it is mentioned that it is open to the Revenue Authorities to seek verification of the Community Certificate. This finding is also unsustainable. As seen earlier, this Court elaborately dealt with the claim of C.V. Manivannan in the Writ Petition in W.P.No.14821 of 1995 and held that he is entitled for the issuance of Community Certificate sought for by him. Even though in the impugned order the respondent has observed that verification of the Community Certificate of C.V. Manivannan is pending the learned counsel for the petitioner positively asserts that no notice has been received by C.V. Manivannan, brother of the petitioner, from State Level Scrutiny Committee. In fact, the counter filed by the respondent is silent on this aspect. In this context it is relevant to point out that liberty was already granted by this Court to the respondent for verification of the Community Certificate. But, no steps appear to have been taken and the Community Certificates issued to the family members of the petitioner are in force and not been cancelled. The Supreme Court in the decision in State of Bihar’s case (stated supra) has concluded that the family members were granted certificates that they belong to a particular community and the applicant therein was entitled to issuance of the same Caste Certificate. For better appreciation, the relevant observations are extracted below: “6. The Supreme Court in the decision in State of Bihar’s case (stated supra) has concluded that the family members were granted certificates that they belong to a particular community and the applicant therein was entitled to issuance of the same Caste Certificate. For better appreciation, the relevant observations are extracted below: “6. We have perused the findings recorded by the Division Bench as well as the Single Judge of the High Court. In view of the fact that the respondent’s father, grandfather, mother and maternal uncle had all be granted the certificate certifying that they belong to the “Gond” community, we see no reason to come to a conclusion other than the one arrived at by the High Court to the effect that the respondent was entitled to issuance of the Caste Certificate”. 12. This Court in the decisions referred to above, has also taken a view that so long as the certificate issued to the father that he belongs to a community which is notified as Scheduled Tribe stands, his children are also entitled to the said Community Certificate. 13. We also of the considered view that the petitioner herein is entitled for issuance of Community Certificate as belonging to ‘Konda Reddy’ Community on the basis of the Community Certificates issued to his parents and his brother, which are in force. Following the ratio of the decisions, referred to above, we are inclined to give a positive direction to the respondent herein to issue Community Certificate to the petitioner as belonging to ‘Konda Reddy’ Community. 14. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of the respondent is set aside and the respondent is directed to issue Community Certificate to the petitioner that he belongs to ‘Konda Reddy’ Community, a notified Scheduled Tribe, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs.